The Pulpit Commentary — 1 Chronicles — Section 46

porho.ps doubtful. Strictly it signifies tends to . giv~ confirmation to the very "aco.ttered to Do.byloo," but (Geseoius, note"."orthy differences of the Septn,igint • Lox icon') if the initio.l po.rt of the word be Vers10n. For although this last, apparently strengthened into )111), theaignifico.tionmight so_me':;hat r,erv~rsely, begins its Tersion be "born in Bo.bylon." We ho.ve in this with sons, which plural does not so well no.me o.nother inat1mce of the treo.tment just suit its sequel, insteau of the "son" of our commented on with rego.rd to the name Hebrew tex~, which would suit it, yet it Salo.thiel in Luke iii. 28. Zerubbabel is proceeds with e. translation which must elsewhere invario.bly describe,) o.s son of hBVe been obtained from another text such S,,lo.thiel, or Shealtiel; but as the genealogy text again suiting properly the sing~lar- of St. Luke gives the natural descent of " son "-of our Hebrew. The form of its Salathiel as from Neri, so does our translation is analogous to that marked in geneo.logy in this one place give us the the words of -yers. 10-~4. "The sons [sic natural descent of Zernbbabel !LB from son] of Ane.niah, Pelatiah, and J' ese.iah his Pedaiah, one of So.lathiel's brothers ; while son, Rephe.ia.h his son, Aman hi• son all other passages (e.g. Ezra iii. 8; Hag. i. O_badiah his son, Bhechaniah his son," making 12; Matt. i. 12; Luke iii. 27) give us that six (presumably) consecutive generations. for which the genealogical tab lo is chiefly This, therefore, is the rcadin:; which (if designed, viz. the matter of succession, correct) might carry down the genealo~y according to which Zerubbabel would be- to the times of Alexander the Great, a~d 1hown as son, i.e. liuk of succession, fol- indeed to e. time e. quarter of a century lowing on Shealtiel. later. And in doing so, it would certify Ver. 19.-Meshullam.. Though this name this entry as of later date than probably recurs, and very frequently, in Chronicles, e.ny other of the c,inon I If we reject this Ezra, and Nehemiah, yet the person here position and reading, we have to get over denoted by it-son of Zerubbabel-is found the term, repeated several times, the sons of. here only. Xane.nia.h, i.q. Joanna of Luke To do this, Bertheau suggests that the in- iii. 27, the names being the same, but with ten lion of our passage was, from the name the component parts transposed, as in in- Rephaiah inclusive, not to mention the stances already given above. In the Gospel, individulll four brothers' names, but to Hananiah appears as grandson of Zorobabel, mention them llS four distinguished families Rhesa intervening. Bhelomith. This person among the posterity of David-an attempt is mentioned here only. The word, though 11t explanation certainly not satisfactory. evidently a feminine form, is found for the The conclusion of the matter is, that in this name of a man, chief of the lzarhites twenty-first verse we have difficulties in (eh. xxiii. 18), but very possibly by a mere either alternative, not satisfactorily ex- clerical error, as the true form is given in plained. Either we have the names in all of the very next chapter (xxiv. 22) for the six brothers, being "sons of Hl\n1miah "-tho same charaoter, viz. n\b?r;/. lllst four of whom 11re styled, not bv their Ver. 20.-The five u.dditional nGmes of individual names, but 11s heads of families ; this verse must presumably sto.nd apart from or we have six lineal clesccndants from the two sons and one d11ughter of the pre- Hnn11niah. If this last supposition wern ceding verse, for some rea.;on. What that correct, Clllculu.te e. roynl succession nt the reason mu.y be is not known. Perhaps the lowest average (say something uudor twenty most n11turo.l supposition is that their mother ye11rs), and the gene11logy, including what wns not the same. 'fhe me!lning of somo follows in the remaining verses of tho of the names, as especially of the last, chapter, will bring us, o.s above, to a dnto Jushab-hesed, i.e. "Loving-kindness is re- thl\t covers the whole lifo of Alcxan,ler thti turned," has led Borlhc11u and oLhers to the Great. conjecture th11t they may ho separated as Ver. 22.-In the obscurity thl\t obtains on children born to Zorubbabol, ono of the the subject, thero is one somewhat bright; leaders of tlie roturn from captivity, after star of light in ll succee,Iing name, Hattnsh. that rnturn. 'fhis seems plausible, except to which this verso le11,!s us. This ver,o for the consideration that, the more pliiusible purports to help on the lino of genealogy hy ll contribution of two descents, the effectivo it is, the more we might expect t!Je oxplo.- nation itself to hnve been notified. names being She"D.e.iah and No11rillh, thti lino coming to its close by uicl of two other Ver. 21.-The Hebrew text, followed by effective n11mes, Elioenai anrl (say) Hod<1iah, the Vnlgate, not followed by the Septu11gint, cont11ined in the 111st two verses of tho reads here n,\l];:,,7~1. Yet some manuscl'ipls chapter. Although ouo manil'est error in hllve the plural "sons," from which comes ver. 22 (involved in the number "six" our Authorized Version. 'l'he indiclltion is when only five sons havo been read; ho- importo.nt. It is doubly interesting, ns the tokens the insecurity ot' tbo text, yet the only indication in our Hebrew tci.:t that sumlllary mc11surcs of tlie ingenious ~.Jrd A. 3G THE FIRST nooK OF TUE cnnON[CLES. [ell, Ill. 1-24.